Filed on behalf of: Unified Patents Inc.
`By:
`Joshua L. Goldberg
`P. Andrew Riley
`Cara Regan Lasswell
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow,
` Garrett & Dunner, LLP
`901 New York Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20001–4413
`Telephone: 202-408-4000
`Facsimile: 202-408-4400
`E-mail:
`ISSA_IPRs@finnegan.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Jonathan Stroud
`Unified Patents Inc.
`1875 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Floor 10
`Washington, DC 20009
`Telephone: 202-805-8931
`E-mail:
`jonathan@unifiedpatents.com
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`QURIO HOLDINGS, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`IPR2015-01991
`Patent 7,787,904
`Personal Area Network Having Media Player and
`Mobile Device Controlling the Same
`__________
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT 7,787,904
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES ............................................................................. 2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Real Party-in-Interest ............................................................................ 2
`
`Related Matters ...................................................................................... 2
`
`Lead and Backup Counsel, and Service Information ............................ 2
`
`III. PAYMENT OF FEES ..................................................................................... 3
`
`IV. STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED ................................... 3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Statutory Grounds of Challenge ............................................................ 3
`
`Claims for Which Review Is Requested ............................................... 4
`
`The Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art at the Time of the
`Claimed Invention ................................................................................. 4
`
`V.
`
`THE ’904 PATENT ......................................................................................... 4
`
`VI. GROUNDS FOR STANDING ........................................................................ 6
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 6
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`“media database” ................................................................................... 6
`
`“when the mobile device is within the WPAN associated with
`the media device” .................................................................................. 7
`
`“if the mobile device is simultaneously within the WPAN
`associated with a first one of the plurality of media devices and
`the WPAN associated with a second one of the plurality of
`media devices” ...................................................................................... 7
`
`VIII. THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE ............................ 8
`
`A.
`
`Claims 1-3, 12, and 16-17 Would Have Been Obvious over
`Lambourne in View of Elabbady .......................................................... 8
`
`1.
`
`Lambourne .................................................................................. 8
`
`ii
`
`

`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Elabaddy ..................................................................................... 9
`
`It would have been obvious to combine the teachings of
`Lambourne and Elabbady ......................................................... 10
`
`B.
`
`Claims 1-3, 12, and 16-17 Would Have Been Obvious over
`Chen in View of Plastina 2007 ........................................................... 23
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Chen .......................................................................................... 23
`
`Plastina 2007 ............................................................................ 25
`
`It would have been obvious to combine the teachings of
`Chen and Plastina 2007 ............................................................ 26
`
`C.
`
`Claims 4 and 7 Would Have Been Obvious over
`Lambourne/Elabbady or Chen/Plastina 2007 in Further View
`of Meade .............................................................................................. 41
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Meade ........................................................................................ 41
`
`It would have been obvious to combine Meade with
`either the Lambourne/Elabbady device or the
`Chen/Plastina 2007 device ....................................................... 42
`
`D.
`
`Claims 5 and 8 Would Have Been Obvious over
`Lambourne/Elabbady/Meade or Chen/Plastina 2007/Meade in
`View of Plastina 2003 ......................................................................... 45
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Plastina 2003 ............................................................................ 45
`
`It would have been obvious to combine Plastina 2003
`with either the Lambourne/Elabbady/Meade device or
`the Chen/Plastina 2007/Meade device ..................................... 45
`
`E.
`
`Claim 9 Would Have Been Obvious over Lambourne/Elabbady
`or Chen/Plastina 2007 in Further View of Dwek ............................... 47
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Dwek .......................................................................................... 47
`
`It would have been obvious to combine Dwek with either
`the Lambourne/Elabbady device or the Chen/Plastina
`2007 device ............................................................................... 47
`
`iii
`
`

`
`F.
`
`Claims 10 and 18 would have been obvious over
`Lambourne/Elabbady or Chen/Plastina 2007 in view of Meade ....... 48
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Meade ........................................................................................ 48
`
`It would have been obvious to combine Meade with
`either the Lambourne/Elabbady device or the
`Chen/Plastina 2007 device ....................................................... 49
`
`G.
`
`Claims 10 and 18 Would Have Been Obvious over
`Lambourne/Elabbady or Chen/Plastina 2007 in Further View
`of Melpignano ..................................................................................... 52
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Melpignano ............................................................................... 52
`
`It would have been obvious to combine the teachings of
`Melpignano with either the Lambourne/Elabbady device
`or the Chen/Plastina 2007 device ............................................. 53
`
`H.
`
`Claim 14 Would Have Been Obvious over
`Lambourne/Elabbady or Chen/Plastina 2007 in Further View
`of Weinans ........................................................................................... 56
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Weinans ..................................................................................... 56
`
`It would have been obvious to combine Weinans with the
`Lambourne/Elabbady device or the Chen/Plastina 2007
`device ........................................................................................ 57
`
`I.
`
`Claim 15 Would Have Been Obvious over
`Lambourne/Elabbady or Chen/Plastina 2007 in Further View
`of Willson ............................................................................................ 58
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Willson ...................................................................................... 58
`
`It would have been obvious to combine Willson with the
`Lambourne/Elabbady device or the Chen/Plastina 2007
`device ........................................................................................ 59
`
`IX. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 60
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
` Page(s)
`
`Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
` 713 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ......................................................................... 53
`
`In re Bigio,
` 381 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .................................................................. 11, 25
`
`In re Yufa,
` 452 F. App’x 998 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .................................................................... 31
`
`KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
` 550 U.S. 398 (2007) ........................................................................................... 27
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
` 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) ........................................................... 6
`
`PlaSmart, Inc. v. Kappos,
` 482 F. App’x 568 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................................. 27, 31
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ................................................................................................ passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ......................................................................................................3, 4
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311 .......................................................................................................... 4
`
`Rules
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100 ..................................................................................................... 6
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ..................................................................................................... 3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15 ....................................................................................................... 3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ......................................................................................................... 2
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Description
`Exhibit
`EX1001 U.S. Patent No. 7,787,904 to Alfredo C. Issa
`EX1002 Declaration of Jon Weissman, Ph.D.
`EX1003 IEEE 100: The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms
`(7th ed. 2000) (definition of “database”)
`EX1004 Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 7,787,904
`EX1005 U.S. Patent No. 7,571,014 to Lambourne et al. (“Lambourne”)
`EX1006 U.S. Patent No. 7,483,958 to Elabbady et al. (“Elabbady”)
`EX1007 U.S. Patent No. 8,479,238 to Chen et al. (“Chen”)
`EX1008 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0048712 to Plastina et
`al. (“Plastina 2007”)
`EX1009 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0073412 to Meade
`(“Meade”)
`EX1010 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0182315 to Plastina et
`al. (“Plastina 2003”)
`EX1011 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2001/0018858 to Dwek
`(“Dwek”)
`EX1012 International Publication No. WO 2004/008693 to Melpignano
`(“Melpignano”)
`EX1013 International Publication No. WO 2002/056536 to Weinans
`(“Weinans”)
`EX1014 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0033413 to Willson et
`al. (“Willson”)
`EX1015 Petitioner’s Voluntary Interrogatory Responses
`EX1016 First Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement, Qurio Holdings,
`Inc. v. Comcast Corp., No. 1:14-cv-07488 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 13, 2014),
`case transferred, No. 2:15-cv-03334 (E.D. Pa.)
`EX1017 First Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement, Qurio Holdings,
`Inc. v. DirecTV, No. 1:14-cv-07502 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 14, 2014), case
`transferred, No. 3:15-cv-01986 (N.D. Cal.)
`EX1018 First Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement, Qurio Holdings,
`Inc. v. Dish Network Corp., No. 1:14-cv-07504 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 13,
`2014), case transferred, No. 3:15-cv-00930 (N.D. Cal.)
`
`
`
`vi
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`I.
`
`Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 7,787,904
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Petitioner Unified Patents Inc. (“Unified”) requests inter partes review
`
`(“IPR”) of claims 1-5, 7-10, 12, and 14-18 of U.S. Patent No. 7,787,904 (“the ’904
`
`patent,” EX1001), assigned to Patent Owner Qurio Holdings, Inc. (“Qurio”).
`
`The ’904 patent describes “[a] system and method . . . for controlling content
`
`played by a number of media devices.” EX1001 at Abstract. Although it argues
`
`that in 2005 “there [was] no way of easily ascertaining the content available
`
`on . . . different media devices and controlling or selecting the content played by
`
`these media devices using a mobile device,” id. at 1:16-19 (emphasis added), such
`
`systems were known before the filing date of the ’904 patent. EX1002, ¶¶ 17-18.
`
`The ’904 patent claims the expected results of combining or optimizing
`
`basic features and functions of then-mature technologies like hand-held computing,
`
`wireless network technologies, and inter-device communication, which the ’904
`
`patent acknowledges were known before November 2005. EX1001 at 3:41-47, 4:4-
`
`6, 4:15-20. Indeed, these technologies are taught by many prior art references,
`
`including, for example, Lambourne (EX1005), Elabbady (EX1006), Chen
`
`(EX1007), Plastina 2007 (EX1008), Meade (EX1009), Plastina 2003 (EX1010),
`
`Dwek (EX1011), Melpignano (EX1012), Weinans (EX1013), and Willson
`
`(EX1014).
`
`1
`
`

`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 7,787,904
`
`Nevertheless, Patent Owner recently asserted these claims in a number of
`
`cases, arguing that currently marketed systems infringe these patents. See generally
`
`EX1016, EX1017, EX1018.
`
` The challenged claims were obvious to those of ordinary skill in this art
`
`before the ’904 patent was filed in 2005. Accordingly, Unified requests that the
`
`Board institute trial and cancel claims 1-5, 7-10, 12, and 14-18 of the ’904 patent.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES
`A. Real Party-in-Interest
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1), Petitioner certifies that Unified is the real
`
`party-in-interest, and further certifies that no other party exercised control or could
`
`exercise control over Unified’s participation in this proceeding, the filing of this
`
`petition, or the conduct of any ensuing trial. In this regard, Unified has submitted
`
`voluntary discovery. See EX1015.
`
`B. Related Matters
`Petitioner identifies the following matters: Qurio Holdings, Inc. v. Dish
`
`Network Corp., No. 3:15-cv-00930 (N.D. Cal.); Qurio Holdings, Inc. v. DirecTV,
`
`No. 3:15-cv-01986 (N.D. Cal.); and Qurio Holdings, Inc. v. Comcast Corp., No.
`
`2:15-cv-03334 (E.D. Pa.) (all transferred from the Northern District of Illinois).
`
`C. Lead and Backup Counsel, and Service Information
`Unified designates Joshua L. Goldberg (Reg. No. 59,369) as lead counsel
`
`and designates P. Andrew Riley (Reg. No. 66,290) and Cara Regan Lasswell (Reg.
`
`2
`
`

`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 7,787,904
`
`No. 70,209) as backup counsel. All can be reached at Finnegan, Henderson,
`
`Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, 901 New York Avenue, NW, Washington, DC
`
`20001-4413 (phone: 202.408.4000; fax: 202.408.4400). Unified also designates as
`
`backup counsel Jonathan Stroud (Reg. No. 72,518), who can be reached at Unified
`
`Patents Inc., 1875 Connecticut Ave. NW, Floor 10, Washington, D.C., 20009
`
`(phone: 202-805-8931; fax: 650-887-0349; e-mail: jonathan@unifiedpatents.com).
`
`Petitioner consents to e-mail service at Issa_IPRs@finnegan.com.
`
`III. PAYMENT OF FEES
`The required fees are submitted herewith in accordance with 37 C.F.R.
`
`§§ 42.103(a) and 42.15(a). If any additional fees are due during this proceeding,
`
`the Office is authorized to charge such fees to Deposit Account No. 06-0916.
`
`IV. STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`A.
`Statutory Grounds of Challenge
`Petitioner requests that the Board hold claims 1-5, 7-10, 12, and 14-18
`
`unpatentable as follows:
`
`Proposed Statutory Rejections for the ’904 Patent
`
`1 Claims 1-3, 12, and 16-17 would have been obvious
`under § 103(a) over Lambourne in view of Elabbady
`2 Claims 1-3, 12, and 16-17 would have been obvious
`under § 103(a) over Chen in view of Plastina 2007
`3 Claims 4 and 7 would have been obvious under
`§ 103(a) over Lambourne/Elabbady or Chen/Plastina
`2007 in view of Meade
`4 Claims 5 and 8 would have been obvious under
`§ 103(a) over Lambourne/Elabbady/Meade or
`
`Exhibit Nos.
`EX1005, EX1006
`
`EX1007, EX1008
`
`EX1005 to EX1009
`
`EX1005 to EX1010
`
`3
`
`

`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 7,787,904
`
`EX1005 to EX1008,
`EX1011
`
`Chen/Plastina 2007/Meade in view of Plastina 2003
`5 Claim 9 would have been obvious under § 103(a) over
`Lambourne/Elabbady or Chen/Plastina 2007 in view
`of Dwek
`6 Claims 10 and 18 would have been obvious under
`§ 103(a) over Lambourne/Elabbady or Chen/Plastina
`2007 in view of Meade
`7 Claims 10 and 18 would have been obvious under
`§ 103(a) over Lambourne/Elabbady or Chen/Plastina
`2007 in view of Melpignano
`8 Claim 14 would have been obvious under § 103(a)
`over Lambourne/Elabbady or Chen/Plastina 2007 in
`view Weinans
`9 Claim 15 would have been obvious under § 103(a)
`over Lambourne/Elabbady or Chen/Plastina 2007 in
`view of Willson
`B. Claims for Which Review Is Requested
`Petitioner requests IPR and cancellation of claims 1-5, 7-10, 12, and 14-18
`
`EX1005 to EX1009
`
`EX1005 to EX1008,
`EX1012
`
`EX1005 to EX1008,
`EX1013
`
`EX1005 to EX1008,
`EX1014
`
`of the ’904 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 311. The claim construction, reasons for
`
`unpatentability, and supporting evidence are detailed below.
`
`C. The Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art at the Time of the Claimed
`Invention
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) at the time of the alleged
`
`invention would have a master’s degree in computer science or electrical
`
`engineering, or a bachelor’s degree in computer science or electrical engineering
`
`and at least two years of industry experience. EX1002, ¶ 19.
`
`V. THE ’904 PATENT
`Purportedly solving the 2005 problem of “easily ascertaining the content
`
`available on these different media devices and controlling or selecting the content
`
`4
`
`

`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 7,787,904
`
`played by these media devices using a mobile device,” EX1001 at 1:16-19, the
`
`’904 patent discloses a system and method using a mobile device (e.g., a personal
`
`digital assistant) to control media devices (e.g., a television or audio player). Id. at
`
`4:4-9, 3:26-30. Communicating with the media devices, the mobile device gathers
`
`data about available content. Id. at 5:8-17; EX1002, ¶¶ 12-13.
`
` The media device
`
`wirelessly sends metadata
`
`describing
`
`its music,
`
`videos, or other available
`
`content to the mobile device, and the mobile device stores the metadata in its
`
`“media database 38.” EX1001 at 4:27-33;
`
`EX1002, ¶¶ 15, 16. Id. Figure 3 illustrates this
`
`process.
`
`With this data, a user selects content
`
`from the media database (illustrated in Fig. 5,
`
`right). EX1001 at 4:38-40. The selected content then plays at the media device. Id.
`
`at 3:18-21.
`
`The ’904 patent has a total of 20 claims, including both device and method
`
`claims. Claims 1-15 are directed to a “mobile device for controlling digital
`
`5
`
`

`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 7,787,904
`
`content,” while claims 16-20 are directed to a “method for controlling digital
`
`content.” Of these, claims 1 and 16 are independent.
`
`VI. GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`Petitioner certifies the ’904 patent is available for IPR and that Petitioner is
`
`not barred or estopped from requesting IPR of the ’904 patent challenging the
`
`patent claims on the grounds identified in this petition.
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`Claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning as understood
`
`by one of ordinary skill in the art. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312-13
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). A claim in an unexpired patent receives the “broadest
`
`reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it
`
`appears.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). As such, the constructions here may differ from
`
`those in district court or ITC proceedings.
`
`The following terms and phrases from the claims of the ’904 patent require
`
`construction for this proceeding. The broadest reasonable construction should be
`
`applied to any claim terms not addressed below.
`
`“media database”
`
`A.
`Challenged claims 1-3, 10, and 16-18 recite a “media database.” The
`
`broadest reasonable construction of “media database” is “a collection of logically
`
`6
`
`

`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 7,787,904
`
`related data describing media stored together.” See, e.g., EX1003 at 268; EX1001
`
`at 4:30-36, Fig. 5; EX1002, ¶¶ 22-23.
`
`B.
`
`“when the mobile device is within the WPAN associated with the
`media device”
`
`Challenged claims 1, 2, 12, 16, and 17 recite “when the mobile device is
`
`within the WPAN associated with the media device.” The broadest reasonable
`
`construction is “when the mobile device is positioned to allow communication
`
`between the mobile device and the media device via the wireless communication
`
`interface of the mobile device.” EX1001 at 2:32-39, 4:40-48, 5:40-45, Figs. 1, 7, 8;
`
`EX1002, ¶¶ 22-23.
`
`C.
`
`“if the mobile device is simultaneously within the WPAN
`associated with a first one of the plurality of media devices and
`the WPAN associated with a second one of the plurality of media
`devices”
`
`Claims 11 and 18 recite “if the mobile device is simultaneously within the
`
`WPAN associated with a first one of the plurality of media devices and the WPAN
`
`associated with a second one of the plurality of media devices,” which should be
`
`construed as “if the mobile device is positioned to allow communication between
`
`the mobile device and both the first and the second media device via the wireless
`
`communication interface of the mobile device.” See id.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 7,787,904
`
`Lambourne
`
`VIII. THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE
`A. Claims 1-3, 12, and 16-17 Would Have Been Obvious over
`Lambourne in View of Elabbady
`1.
`U.S.
`
`Patent
`
`No.
`
`7,571,014
`
`(“Lambourne,” EX1005) issued August 4,
`
`2009, from an application filed June 5, 2004,
`
`before the earliest filing date of the ’904
`
`patent. Lambourne is thus prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Lambourne, which
`
`describes techniques for remotely controlling media players, EX1005 at Abstract,
`
`was not considered by the examiner during prosecution of the ’904 parent.
`
`Figure 1 (reproduced above) illustrates the system. Lambourne discloses
`
`zone players 102, 104, and 106 (or 200), which may be audio devices. Id. at 4:63-
`
`67. Each includes a network interface 202, as
`
`well as audio processing circuit 210 and
`
`audio amplifier 214. Id. at 6:18-27, Fig. 2A.
`
`Controller 140 1 “control[s] operations
`
`of one or more zone players (e.g., the zone
`
`
`1 Lambourne discloses several interchangeable controllers, which are assigned
`
`different reference numerals in different figures. These include controllers 140,
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 7,787,904
`
`player 200) through a RF interface corresponding to the RF interface 216 of FIG.
`
`2A.” Id. at 7:27-34. This wireless communication may be “based on an industry
`
`standard (e.g., infrared, radio, wireless standard IEEE 802.11a . . . . ).” Id. Figure
`
`2B (above) illustrates an exemplary controller. Screen 242 and buttons 244, 246,
`
`and 248 serve as a user interface. Id. at 7:43-50. For example, “‘music’ button 248
`
`activates a music menu, which allows the selection of an audio source (e.g., a
`
`song) to be added to a zone player’s music queue for playback.” Id. at 7:59-61.
`
`Lambourne discloses that the controller displays information relating to the
`
`available media, see, e.g., id. at 2:41-46, Fig. 3C, but does not explicitly disclose
`
`that the controller stores this information. EX1002, ¶¶ 33-37.
`
`Elabaddy
`
`2.
`U.S. Patent No. 7,483,958 (“Elabbady,” EX1006) issued January 27, 2009,
`
`from an application filed March 26, 2002, before the earliest filing date of the ’904
`
`
`142, 240, and 110. EX1005 at 7:23-25 (“[C]ontroller 240 . . . may correspond to
`
`the controlling device 140 or 142 of FIG. 1.”); id. at 8:19-21 (“[C]ontroller
`
`270 . . . may correspond to the controller 240 of FIG. 2B.”); id. at 14:6-10 (“The
`
`computing device may correspond to the device 110 of FIG. 1 and be configured to
`
`control operations of the zone players installed in a complex.”); EX1002 at 12 n.1.
`
`For convenience, all controllers are referred to as “controller 140.”
`
`9
`
`

`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 7,787,904
`
`patent. Elabbady is thus prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Elabbady discloses a
`
`“media catalog” describing multimedia content that is available on multiple
`
`devices. EX1006 at 2:9-12, 6:8-11, 11:11-15; EX1002, ¶¶ 38-41.
`
`The media catalog service 203 collects information and generates a media
`
`catalog 205. See id. at Fig. 3, 6:8-15. The media catalog service 203 receives
`
`metadata from the media libraries of devices within a media sharing environment
`
`200. Id. at 7:16-24. This metadata is used to create a media catalog consisting of
`
`“aggregated information,” id. at 6:19-21, “about media content that is available for
`
`sharing between at least some of the connected devices,” id. at 6:8-11. Media
`
`catalog service 203 converts this information into a markup language file, id. at
`
`6:37-52, and “can make a cached copy of the metadata from multiple media
`
`libraries,” id. at 12:13-16. The catalog may also be relayed to a device over
`
`network 204. Id. at 2:6:12, 11:11-20. The catalog “provides information about
`
`selected media content . . . to a user for possible selection.” Id. at 11:11-20, 8:61-
`
`62. The device user may “search[] the media catalog, brows[e] the search results,
`
`select[] a media item for playback, etc.” Id. at 12:18-21; EX1002, ¶¶ 38-41.
`
`3.
`
`It would have been obvious to combine the teachings of
`Lambourne and Elabbady
`
`Lambourne discloses that controller 140 includes a music menu that allows
`
`the user to browse available music content. Lambourne is silent as to how this
`
`10
`
`

`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 7,787,904
`
`menu is generated, but Elabbady discloses a system for generating a media catalog
`
`and providing it to a user. EX1002, ¶ 43.
`
`Including the media catalog service of Elabbady in the controller of
`
`Lambourne would allow controller 140 to gather metadata from the zone players
`
`regarding their available content, organize this information, and present it to a user.
`
`A POSA could have easily made this combination. Controller 140 includes a
`
`network interface, memory, and “a processor coupled to the memory.” EX1005 at
`
`3:6-12, 8:19-28. It would have been well within the ability of a POSA to
`
`implement Elabbady’s disclosure of a media catalog service with the controller of
`
`Lambourne. EX1002, ¶¶ 42-45.
`
`Further, a POSA would have been motivated to do so, as Elabbady discloses
`
`a simple, optimized method of generating the music menu advertised by
`
`Lambourne. Id., ¶¶ 42-43. As noted, caching metadata for the music menu would
`
`reduce network congestion and improve performance and enhance the ability to
`
`remotely control multimedia, as advocated by Elabbady and Lambourne. 2 See
`
`EX1006 at 1:44-53; EX1005 at 2:5-13; see also EX1002, ¶ 45.
`
`
`2 Lambourne and Elabbady are analogous art. Both relate to multimedia
`
`management across a home network. EX1006 at 1:15-18, EX1005 at 1:19-22. See
`
`In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004); EX1002, ¶ 33.
`
`11
`
`

`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 7,787,904
`
`Additionally, the combination of Lambourne and Elabbady discloses each of
`
`the claimed features, as explained in detail below. Because all of the features are
`
`taught by the combined references and the combination is proper for at least the
`
`reasons discussed above, claims 1-3, 12, and 16-17 would have been obvious at the
`
`time of the alleged invention.
`
`Elements 1.0, 1.1, 1.3, and 1.6:
`
`Lambourne discloses elements 1.0, 1.1, 1.3, and 1.6, as discussed in the
`
`claim charts below. EX1005 at 2:41-44, 6:6-17, 8:19-28, 8:38-41, 10:47-50, 12:13-
`
`15, 14:17-19.
`
`Elements 1.2 and 1.5:
`
`[1.2] b) a media database;
`
`[1.5] [a control system adapted to] ii) store the information describing the
`
`content residing at the media device in the media database;
`
`Lambourne discloses at least the italicized portion of elements 1.2 and 1.5.
`
`Elabbady renders the other portions of elements 1.2 and 1.5 obvious.
`
`In particular, Lambourne discloses that controller 140 includes memory and
`
`a wireless interface, which perform the functions of the claimed control system.
`
`See id. at 8:19-28. Lambourne describes a “music menu” providing a list of
`
`available content residing at a zone player, id. at 7:59-61, but does not explicitly
`
`disclose how the data used to create the music menu is stored. EX1002, ¶ 37.
`
`12
`
`

`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 7,787,904
`
`Applying the claim construction discussed above, element 1.2 requires “a
`
`collection of logically related data describing media stored together.” Given
`
`Lambourne’s disclosure of a “music menu,” a POSA would have been motivated
`
`to use the media cataloging service 203 and media catalog 205 of Elabbady to
`
`easily implement this feature. EX1005 at 7:59-61; EX1002, ¶¶ 42-45. Controller
`
`140 would then store the information describing the zone player content in a
`
`collection of logically related data. EX1002, ¶ 43.
`
`The following charts show how Lambourne and Elabbady teach all the
`
`features of claims 1- 3, 12, and 16-17.3
`
`Claim 1:
`[1.0] A mobile
`device
`for
`controlling digital
`content played by
`a
`plurality
`of
`media
`devices
`comprising:
`
`Exemplary Disclosure of Prior Art
`Lambourne discloses a controller (the claimed “mobile
`device”) for controlling “a number of multimedia players” or
`“zone players” (the claimed “plurality of media devices”).
`EX1005 at Abstract. For example, Lambourne states:
`[O]ne or more controlling devices . . . are used to
`control zone players 102, 104 and 106 as shown
`in FIG. 1. [They] are preferably portable and
`remotely control the zone players via wireless
`means (e.g., infrared, radio, wireless standard
`IEEE 802.11b or 802.11g). . . . [C]ontrolling
`device 140 . . . is configured to manage audio
`sources and audio characteristics of all the zone
`players regardless [of] where the controlling
`device . . . is located in a house . . . .
`Id. at 6:7-17.
`[1.1] a) a wireless Lambourne discloses that the controller includes a wireless
`
`3 All emphasis in the claim charts in this petition is added unless otherwise noted.
`
`13
`
`

`
`
`
`for
`
`communication
`interface
`communicating
`with the plurality
`of media devices;
`
`[1.2] b) a media
`database; and
`
`Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 7,787,904
`
`“network interface” (the claimed “wireless communication
`interface”) for communicating with the plurality of media
`devices. Id. at 3:6-12. For example, Lambourne discloses:
`The controlling devices 140 and 142 are
`preferably portable and remotely control the zone
`players via wireless means (e.g., infrared, radio,
`wireless standard IEEE 802.11b or 802.11g).
`see also
`id.
`Id.
`(“The
`at 6:10-13;
`at 8:38-41
`controller [140] includes . . . a RF interface 280 that facilitates
`wireless communication with a zone player . . . .”).
`Lambourne discloses that the controller displays a list of
`available media content. See id. at Fig. 3C (portion, below).
`Elabbady discloses media catalog
`service 203, which generates
`metadata and creates a media
`catalog
`that
`is a collection of
`logically related data describing
`media stored together. For example,
`Elabbady discloses:
`is configured
`to provide
`[M]edia LS 207
`metadata to media [catalog service] CS 203 about
`media content that at least its host device has
`available for sharing . . . [and] generates at least
`one media library that can be provided to media
`CS 203 over network 204 and subsequently
`aggregated into, or otherwise used to create, the
`resulting media catalog.
`EX1006 at 7:18-24; see also id. at 12:13-15 (“Media catalog
`service 203 can make a cached copy of the metadata from
`multiple media libraries.”).
`
`14
`
`

`
`
`
`[1.3] c) a control
`system adapted to,
`for each of
`the
`plurality of media
`devices:
`
`i)
`[1.4]
`communicate with
`the media device
`when the mobile
`device is within a
`wireless personal
`area
`network
`(WPAN)
`associated with the
`media device
`to
`obtain information
`describing content
`residing
`at
`the
`media device; and
`
`Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 7,787,904
`
`Lambourne
`discloses that the
`controller includes
`memory
`282,
`loaded with “one
`or more application
`modules 284 that
`can be executed by
`the microcontroller
`276,” as well as a
`wireless
`interface
`280, which perform the functions of the claimed control
`system. See EX1005 at 8:19-28, Fig. 2C.
`Lambourne discloses that the controller and the zone players
`(the claimed media devices) communicate via a wireless
`interface.4 For example, Lambourne discloses:
`The controller 270 includes a network interface
`280 . . . that facilitates wireless communication
`with a zone pla